Why are you surprised, 3 is amazing!
3 is shit on and seen as the punching bag because from an overarching story they dropped the ball hard with Desmond’s story line.
The actual game though is one of the better stories (after AC: 2) Ubisoft ever pulled off.
2, 3, IV and Origin/Odyssey are the only times I would say Ubisoft actually tried to do something unique outside of simply pumping yearly releases with marginal engine changes.
Look up what Alfred Nobel is famous for inventing and the whole bombing fixation starts to make more sense.
I guess reading comprehension is that bad. Here was the rest of the comment:
The justification for attacking them is that they need to be stopped before they cross the line.
I’m not saying I agree with this line of reasoning, but the clear idea is that Iran doesn’t currently have nuclear weapons.
Alright fair you are old. Just not because of COD WWII lmao.
charging at the cops his father had called, and being fatally shot as a result.
His father will never forgive himself.
COD WWII is my favorite multiplayer ever.
Yes I’m old.
Your favorite game is the fourteenth entry in the franchise. Calm down with the “old” lmfao.
And are these your own views too? I thought you said you didn’t know what to make of her.
Oh I get that comes across weird, I’m looking all this stuff up as you’re challenging me on it and what I’m finding is starting to solidify my views a bit more.
I have to admit I’m not particularly invested in this issue, but I do think it’s a gross mischaracterisation to say the letters post relationship somehow constitute an ongoing affair. They quite obviously don’t.
That doesn’t seem as obvious to the New Yorker
In 1950, seventeen years after they had last communicated, Arendt and Heidegger met again, when she went to Germany to help track down stolen Jewish cultural treasures. At times, she had been publicly critical of Heidegger’s behavior during his rectorship and afterward, but the renewal of their ties banished all her suspicions. “This evening and this morning are the confirmation of an entire life,” she wrote to him after their meeting. For the next two years, their love enjoyed a brief afterlife, as Heidegger wrote poems about her and told her things like “I wish I could run the five-fingered comb through your frizzy hair.”
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/01/12/beware-of-pity-Hannah-Arendt
(The author betrays a very obvious bias about what we’re supposed to take away to be fair)
When I quoted her, my intention was simply to communicate that specific idea, with which I agree - not to evoke her as if she were some kind of infallible god.
Yeah I’m with you there.
As far as I’m aware historians have not found any evidence that Arendt was any more aware of the content of the notebooks than anyone else was.
That I’m not sure.
I don’t think I really know enough to have a right to that strong a view when the historical record seems to be changing so recently and most of her letters are lost whole she kept all of Heideggers, but what I’m finding is a bit troubling tbh.
For over half a century she was considered the best source of insight into Eichmann and Nazi psychology.
With new knowledge about her conflict of interest and defence of Heidegger I’m left wondering how much of an expert she should be considered.
It seems from the evidence, Heidegger was a willing and complicit Nazi who wrote about genuinely antisemetic views. In that light, Hannah’s defence of him is surprising.
I’m unsure of what go make of her psychological evaluation capabilities if she had such a glaring blindspot here.
I’m not in favour of abandoning the concepts of ideology and interpretation because Althusser murdered his wife, similarly I’m not going to abandon the concept of the banality of evil because Arendt was deluded about a creepy professor she had an affair with.
Right, neither am I.
That’s why I didn’t abandon it and instead said I am unsure what to make of it.
I’m not trying to come to a black or white conclusion, I think this is a complicated subject.
The romantic choices of many of us between the ages of 18-21 (her age during their actual affair) probably don’t bear scrutiny.
I’m not scrutinizing her for any choices between 18 and 21.
This was a lifelong relationship, Hannah herself reached out and continued writing letters in his defense from the 1950s to her death.
An ex who later became a nazi (and then recanted) is probably an excellent example of how quotidian these kinds of evils can be.
Ex? No.
Recanted? They denied he had any nazi sympathy and claimed it was all a mistake
Later, in a 1969 birthday tribute essay “Martin Heidegger at Eighty,” Arendt penned what has generally been taken as an exoneration of Heidegger. In it, she “compared Heidegger to Thales,” writes Gordon, “the ancient philosopher who grew so absorbed in contemplating the heavens that he stumbled into the well at his feet.”
This was the accepted view of Heidegger until 2014 when the black notebooks came out
But major Heidegger scholars have responded in a variety of ways—including resigning a chairship of the Martin Heidegger Society—that suggest the worst. According to Daily Nous, a website about the philosophy profession, when Günter Figal resigned his position in January as chair of the Martin Heidegger Society, he said:
As chairman of a society, which is named after a person, one is in certain way a representative of that person. After reading the Schwarze Hefte [Black Notebooks], especially the antisemitic passages, I do not wish to be such a representative any longer. These statements have not only shocked me, but have turned me around to such an extent that it has become difficult to be a co-representative of this.
Hannah defends him as just so focused on high philosophy he never noticed the antisemitism
Recalls Adam Kirsch in the Times:
The seal was set on his absolution by Hannah Arendt, in a birthday address broadcast on West German radio. Heidegger’s Nazism, she explained, was an “escapade,” a mistake, which happened only because the thinker naïvely “succumbed to the temptation … to ‘intervene’ in the world of human affairs.” The moral to be drawn from the Heidegger case was that “the thinking ‘I’ is entirely different from the self of consciousness,” so that Heidegger’s thought cannot be contaminated by the actions of the mere man.
but I don’t think it’s a case of contagion.
Modern scholars seem to say otherwise
In a long, carefully documented essay, Wasserstein (who’s now at the University of Chicago), cites Arendt’s scandalous use of quotes from anti-Semitic and Nazi “authorities” on Jews in her Totalitarianism book.
Wasserstein concludes that her use of these sources was “more than a methodological error: it was symptomatic of a perverse world-view contaminated by over-exposure to the discourse of collective contempt and stigmatization that formed the object of her study”—that object being anti-Semitism. In other words, he contends, Arendt internalized the values of the anti-Semitic literature she read in her study of anti-Semitism, at least to a certain extent
https://slate.com/human-interest/2009/10/troubling-new-revelations-about-arendt-and-heidegger.html
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. . . . American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. . . . This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. . . .Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. . . . In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
Dwight D Eisenhower’s farewell address, 1961
There was absolutely money in Ukraine. When you read “billions of dollars in weapons sent”, if Ukraine received the weapons who do you think received the billion dollars?
deleted by creator
I still don’t know what to make of her views on nazis given the fact she had a lifelong romantic relationship with the one who ejected her and other Jews from her university.
Did Heidegger not also possess this “banality of evil”? Or was he somehow an acception?
If you’re talking OpenEvolve you have to specific put in the tests and expected values for each function for this approach to work.
Every good scientist believed in something supernatural at least once, then they tried to proof it (black holes f.e.).
Science deals with things that are natural.
If a black hole were assumed to be supernatural there’d be nothing to prove. The “then they tried to prove it” forces scientists to make theories which are falsifiable (ie in the natural world).
If there’s no test we can think of to disprove the idea, it’s not a scientific idea.
Atheism is unscientific. You can’t proof the non existence of god(s),
Theism is unscientific. You can’t prove the existence of god(s).
A-theism means absence of theism.
Atheists aren’t necessarily claiming to be able to prove god doesn’t exist, they’re saying they don’t believe in a particular theism.
therefore ruling out every possible of something supernatural is dumb.
Agreed. Gnostic atheism seems dumb to me too.
That’s why I’m agnostic atheist. I don’t believe in God, but I dont know if I’m right or not.
There could be a god, and seeing evidence of such I’d change my mind.
How many dimensions are there again?
We don’t know.
Depends what you mean by dimension as well. Spacetime seems to have 4, 3 space and 1 time.
Spacetime also appears to be an illusion. Whatever the answer is needs to be informed by quantum physical mechanisms we don’t fully understand yet.
Again, agnostic covers the “I don’t know part”.
Has every scientist that believes in the string theory lost credibility?
Basically yeah.
Checkout this video, Dr. Collier covers a lot of points I was feeling as well.
String theorists lied to everyone and massively overstated the evidence that it was true when it was still a young developing model.
Now that it’s become a dead-end it’s tough to take back those promises.
That is outrageous! It’s unfair!
You clearly don’t know what I mean
I know exactly what you mean. 100% crystal clear.
I asked for actual evidence.
You asked for physical evidence.
If you have none, you could have said that near the beginning of this conversation rather than whatever you’ve been doing.
Once I realized you had a radically strict criteria for what types of evidence could be considered “actual evidence” far and beyond what the most serious scholars and historians would apply, I did say that.
https://lemmy.ml/comment/18918021
Right here I said we were done and I had nothing more I could give you.
You also clearly don’t know what I mean since you’ve been attributing random meanings to me that have been wrong every time. I don’t have nefarious purposes, I actually just want the actual evidence you claimed to have
I gave you the evidence I claimed to have.
You want evidence I never claimed to have, but which you mistakenly think I did.
and I don’t put stock in people’s stories, because people are often mistaken for many reasons. For evidence to be taken seriously , it should not rely on subjective accounts.
Are you sure?
Earlier you told me we know Australopithecus existed because we found their bones.
I believe some scientist may have found a bone, but why do you accept its as old as they say it is, why do you accept it belonged to a distinct species called Australopithecus? Where’s the physical evidence of that?
In between the Australopithecus and the homo sapien there are quite a few missing links that need stories to fill them in.
Maybe they migrated this way in this period? Maybe the water was lower and there was an ice bridge here? Maybe this was a distinct species and not a direct ancestor?
These are all stories aren’t they, opinions of archaeologists and paleontologists and biologists?
Why do you consider finding a weird looking bone evidence of Australopithecus if you don’t follow the subjective accounts of evolutionary scientists and archaeologists when they’re dating these bones and sequencing genetic material and so forth?
All right, let’s start again with no more assumptions about what you think I might possibly mean.
I know exactly what you mean.
Literally, you said there was evidence of Jesus’s existence.
Yes, due to the fact I agree with historians that contemporary sources are evidence, I say there is evidence.
I literally only asked for one example of said evidence.
And I gave you 8 contemporary sources and listed more.
The issue is that you disagree with the scientific community this is valid and are demanding physical evidence.
I’ve told you multiple times no physical evidence exists. It’s an impossible demand, and there’s nothing to show you.
I am not asking for books or videos
You asked if I had any other evidence but what i gave you or if we were done here and I said “yes we are done here” because there’s nothing fucking else to give you. Get that through your dumb skull holy shit. How are we this many comments deep into you still not getting there’s no physical evidence and I have never claimed there to be.
If your default position is to disagree with the overwhelming consensus of scientists, but then instead of learning even the slightest about what they’re saying you choose to argue with randos on social media about it you’re just anti intelligence. You’re choosing to be dumber on purpose. I’m not here for that shit.
You might as well argue the earth is flat.
Jesus Christ, I never asked you to transcribe a video, what are you even on about?
You didn’t specifically ask me to transcribe the video, but you would realize if I did transcribe the video that it is the exact answer to your question and answers every issue you’ve raised.
So as you keep pestering me over and over again for “one piece of physical evidence” I’m frustrated by the fact you’re basically just demanding me to transcribe it instead of watching it yourself.
I asked for ONE thing:
Give me one piece of evidence to support your claim.
That’s all.
I listed like 8 contemporary sources written by people who knew of him in the early 1st century including some people (like Paul) who would have personally met his disciples.
What I have given you is what historians consider valid evidence. That you have a problem with it is your issue with the field of history, not my lack of evidence.
It’s simple, and something a child could understand.
But yet here we are.
For instance, we know Australopithecus existed because we’ve found bones.
It’s that simple.
Dude how many times do i have to repeat myself. You’re not going to find bones. Give up on the bones.
How is this hard?
It’s impossible.
No physical evidence exists of almost any Palestinian at that time.
Bones are created in very specific conditions, the real Jesus would by all likelihood have been thrown into a mass grave. If I had a 2000 year old bone how would we even prove it was Jesus?
Historians look at the earliest contemporary sources written about him to judge if he exists, and all modern historians agree that by scrutinizing and comparing these documents a man named Yeshua probably existed, he was probably from Nazareth and he was probably crucified.
If that’s not good enough for you that’s really not my fault. It’s simply what the evidence is and how history works.
Isn’t it ironic to you that you wanted to ask me to read an entire book for your point, but you’re now assuming I want you to watch a gasp half hour video, though I never asked that?
I already watched the video. I’m saying it’s unrealistic of you to ask me to go back and keep restarting it to transcribe it for you.
Evidence is not bible stories. Evidence is archaeological artefacts or bones or literally anything physical that is not some guy’s stories. This is not hard. I’m only asking for ONE example.
The reason you’re asking me to transcribe the video is because I timestamped the exact moment for you where it addressed this as a completely unrealistic demand and that no serious historian would expect to find any or find it a compelling argument against his existence.
There are no examples, nor should that be a problem for a historians. Which is why I brought up the example of William Shakespeare and Alexander the Great.
But yeah, I’m the troll because you’d rather spend an hour harassing me about explaining the basics of the scientific discipline of history instead of watching 2 minutes of a 20 minute video.
If art is simply a “commodity” then machines could make it cheaper.
I don’t think art is just a “commodity”. I don’t think it’s value is simply in being traded and sold.